Recording what a repository said, and when
A value copied out of a repository is worth keeping only with the version it belongs to, the page it came from, the wording it was written in and the date it was read. Any three of the four leave a note that has to be researched again. As of 2026-09-12.
| Field | What dropping it costs |
|---|---|
| Version | The value cannot be attributed to a download |
| Page | A fresh search every time the value is questioned |
| Exact wording | Hedges and qualifiers disappear silently |
| Date | No way to tell whether the value is current |
Inclusion rule. Fields worth recording with any value read from a vendor page. Each row states the specific cost of omitting that field. Order. In the order the fields should be written down.
1The wording is the field most often dropped
Peak becomes needs, approximately becomes a specification, and current capability becomes a ceiling. Each of those substitutions happens in the act of summarising, and each turns a hedged claim into a firm one.
Keeping the phrase costs a few characters and preserves the one part of the value that tells a reader how much weight it can carry.
2A version turns a claim into something reproducible
A memory figure recorded against a family that publishes three sizes cannot be tested: any failure to reproduce it is attributable to the wrong download. The version is what makes the claim falsifiable.
It also protects against the commonest confusion in this field, which is a licence or a figure from one release being quoted about another.
3The date is what makes rechecking cheap
Repositories are edited without announcements. With a date and a link, questioning a value is a minute's work; without them it is a research session, and the person who wrote the note is usually not the person asking.
A note that says the family is permissively licensed and carries no date will not survive a question six months later, and will be quoted anyway.
4Record absences with the same discipline
No figure stated is a finding and it needs the same four fields: which version, which page, what was looked for, and when. Otherwise a gap in the notes is indistinguishable from a gap in the reading.
Absences also change. A repository that stated nothing about memory in one month may state something in the next, and only a dated absence makes that visible.
5Link the live page rather than copying it
A mirrored paragraph is a snapshot that will silently diverge from the source. A link plus a date and an exact quotation of the value gives a reader the current page and the historical claim at once.
Where a value is central to a decision, quoting the sentence verbatim is worth the space. Where it is not, the field and the date are enough.
6The same discipline scales to a team
Four fields per value is light enough to survive being done under pressure, which is the only test a documentation habit has to pass. Anything heavier gets skipped exactly when it matters.
It is also the minimum that lets somebody else act on the note. A value without a source is a rumour with a number attached.
7Where the repository figures are kept
The techniques above are general. Which vendors have published what, under which licence and on what hardware, is recorded on the model pages, each figure quoted from the repository it was read from with its date.
- How read — the rule this register applies
- Limits of a register — what the form cannot do
- The dataset — the same fields, machine-readable
Craft notes on reading releases. No row here is attributed to a vendor, and nothing on this page is a reading of anyone's licence obligations. The sourced material is on the requirements page. Related: Reading a licence, Planning hardware.